An ‘Outrageous Abuse of Executive Power’

So, Obama once again “delays” the law of the land on Obamacare. Why? Because there is an election coming up, silly, and he wants to do what he can to protect vulnerable Democrats. I pick this bit from the Detroit News more or less at random: “In announcing the latest postponement this week . . . the Obama administration carefully credited Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Udall of Colorado, Ron Barber of Arizona and 10 other vulnerable Democratic lawmakers.” What do you think about this? I think the Detroit News is right: “While it may be politically expedient, rewriting a law passed by Congress simply to avoid ballot box consequences is an outrageous abuse of executive power.” Where, I wonder, is the tar? Where are the feathers? Where are the pitchforks and the pullulating multitudes marching and chanting in the streets over this contemptuous exhibition of lawlessness?

Where are you, Dear Reader? Have you written to your duly elected members of Congress? Have you raised this issue with your friends? Why is it that the president of the United States blithely puts himself above the law? “Decency, security, and liberty,” Justice Brandeis once wrote, “alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.”

In a government of laws [Brandeis continues], existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy.

Why is Obama’s lawlessness not the subject of front-page stories in the New York Times? Why is the electorate not enraged by this extraordinary spectacle of lawlessness? Is it because they feel that, despite everything, Obama is in some obscure way “on the right right side”? That opponents of the unaffordable “affordable” health care legislation are beastly meanies? That Obama means well, and meaning well is all that matters? That, being a half-black lifelong beneficiary of affirmative action, he is untouchable?

I do not know the exact composition of the rationale. But it is crystal clear that we are witnessing arrant lawlessness and a silent collusion in lawlessness. I have had occasion to quote these lines from A Man for All Seasons before in this space. Roper, the prospective son-in-law of Sir Thomas More, urges him to arrest someone they suspect of being a spy. For what? More asks. He hasn’t broken any law. That doesn’t matter, says Roper. He’s a danger to you. “What would you do,” asks More, “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” Says Roper: “I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More replies: “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws being all flat?”

It’s a good question, isn’t it? When the leader of the free world makes his way back from the links, maybe someone will ask him about that.

I think the basic reason people aren't standing up is fear. That is what has sustained the power of tyrants through history. And not enough people are standing up and explaining why all of our freedoms depend on sustaining the rule of law. Thank you for making a start.

Could it be that with his past membership among the "Honourables" in the Congress / Senate he took the measure of the members of that agency? THEIR respect for The Law?

Could it be that he KNOWS many members of the Congress and Judiciary are SELF - interested above all else?

The evidence of their concepts of duty, integrity and service to and for "the public" from the most powerful with their lifetime tenure is so much hogwash?

Fairy tales for children and "that vast Right Wing Conspiracy", their "astro-turf" or the current pet name "low information voters".

Look now at how many "representatives of the People" are anticipating their own futures IN Government. Rather than accepting their PRESENT DUTY to which their own sworn/affirmed oaths commit them : to Uphold and Defend the Constitution, aka the Supreme Law of the Land.

Could it be that so many members of Congress, and all Judiciary, are traiined as lawyers and kNOW as self interested of the Legal Profession just how to Game the Legal System?

For example how to AVOID their BOUNDEN DUTY to Uphold and Defend the Constitution. Dotted i's and crossed t's as hindrances.

THE oath binding them GUARDIANS of the Law, the Supreme Law of the Land.

With necessary and sufficient powers AND responsibilities as CO -Equal branches of the government to assure the LAWFUL administration of that government.

BUT what's an oath worth in today's "modern world"?

AND could it be that no matter how much Obama and the entire hierarchy of the "Democratic" and friends factions display AND HAVE displayed for some decades, their utter disrespect for TBHE LAW. and the People it protects from their plans, designs to Take over their individiual decisions in their private lives?

I've written to both senators even though one is a democrat and is, in fact, the despicable lying scoundrel Harry Reid. I don't think there is much that we the people can do to stop the presidential grab for power; it will take the congress to awaken to the fact they have become powerless. Maybe after the mid term elections there will be a change of heart in congress.

I wrote to my senator (a Democrat) last summer. Within two weeks I received a notice of my businesses audit by the state department of labor. It was painful but since I am an honest person, there were no problems found. It's a bit chicken, but I'm not up for another soul-sucking experience like that.

Whatmeeworry: You're right, but there is a 3rd reason. He's delaying a very unpopular law. Of course its a abuse of power, but everybody is so relieved to get a reprieve that they're loath to complain about it.

A very insightful remark. One that hides in plain sight. And look on the bright side. Many if not most Cons worried at the start that once established the ACA would never be repealed. The longer it gets not established the more likely it is to be repealed. Works for me.

Where, I wonder, is the tar? Where are the feathers? Where are the pitchforks and the pullulating multitudes marching and chanting in the streets over this contemptuous exhibition of lawlessness?

I have a great deal of trouble picturing citizens demonstrating in large numbers that ObamaCare, which is clearly a major disaster, isn't being implemented on schedule. Seriously, it would be like a death row prisoner protesting that his execution has been delayed several months.

I realize that the bigger picture - Obama's ignoring the law of the land via his Executive Orders - would be the real cause of such a protest but how many citizens will respond positively if it looks like we're complaining that ObamaCare isn't being rolled out on the original schedule?

I think everyone who speaks to a liberal who thinks delaying the law is just fine how they would feel about delaying an environmental law, like something to stop pollution. Or, how they'll feel when the government is directed by the next President to stop implementing ACA. After all, it looks like it requires neither a repeal of the law nor an executive order to change it. The President can simply decide that the situation isn't right and stop it. Mind blown.